Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[MHopcroft1963]

I don't know how many of you watch fantasy, science fiction, or superhero movies (the three tend to blend) but a recent release of a trailer for the upcoming Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (due out in 2016) has raised a question in my mind: is a story that is dark or pessimistic in tone inherently better than one that is bright and optimistic?

This is a very dark trailer. What makes it really dark is how it contrasts with how readers, moviegoers, and viewers have typically viewed the character of Superman in the past. He has usually been portrayed as a beacon, a symbol of hope, and someone who represents the best of mankind. But the image of Superman has been distinctly tarnished of late in media, and recent portrayals of him (and just about everyone else in the comics medium) have been decidedly grimmer, less joyful, and less optimistic.

Is there a storytelling maxim that stories in which things turn out well for the protagonist are less interesting? Obviously in any good story the protagonist faces challenges, struggles, and the potential for change -- conflict is what drives drama. But does hope in fiction exist to be crushed? Is a positive outcome a cop-out? More importantly, is hope itself an illusion, both in fiction and in reality?

[LuckyR]

Well, since people are complex and multidimensional, to be a "hero" or a good character, every (or almost every) aspect should be perfect. Such perfection is an illusion and after scraping the surface of any hero we discover imperfections. Thus the old Superman ethic is not realistic and ultimately overly simplistic. That is: not interesting, inferior art.

Realistic, complex, imperfect characters and plots are inherantly more interesting and "better" art.

[Belinda]

MHopcroft1963 wrote:

But does hope in fiction exist to be crushed? Is a positive outcome a cop-out? More importantly, is hope itself an illusion, both in fiction and in reality?

If the protagonist is exceedingly hopeful she might be a Pollyanna, and the fiction be escapist by intention of the author or by what the reader gets out of it, or both.

If the character in question is reasonably hopeful the novel might be a comedy if at the end of the story her hope is realised, or even if at the end of the story her hope is dashed. The story would be a tragedy if the reader could guess from the beginning that the hopeful protagonist is going to come to grief, all the more so if she is unaware that she is wasting her life.

In all cases hope itself is unlikely to be a sufficient theme. The author might for instance show how the hope is imprudent, immoral, wishful thinking, irrational, life-affirming, generous, disapproved of by peers or others, illegal , etc. etc.

That hope is not an illusion can easily be vouched for by those who don't despair.

[Sy Borg]

I don't know how many of you watch fantasy, science fiction, or superhero movies (the three tend to blend) but a recent release of a trailer for the upcoming Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (due out in 2016) has raised a question in my mind: is a story that is dark or pessimistic in tone inherently better than one that is bright and optimistic?

This is a very dark trailer. What makes it really dark is how it contrasts with how readers, moviegoers, and viewers have typically viewed the character of Superman in the past. He has usually been portrayed as a beacon, a symbol of hope, and someone who represents the best of mankind. But the image of Superman has been distinctly tarnished of late in media, and recent portrayals of him (and just about everyone else in the comics medium) have been decidedly grimmer, less joyful, and less optimistic.

The Dark Night was the darkest rendition of super heroes, and a great success and nothing is more sure that, if Hollywood sees a success, they will repeatedly emulate what they see as the formula until it's a worn out cliche.

It should be said that the idealistic, "perfect good guy" of the 50s and 60s reflected the times - buoyed by a period of relative peace, the darkness was swept under the carpet. The 50s was seen as a well-mannered time of family values and white picket fences. Hidden behind the shiny facade was silent spousal and child abuse and covert corruption and sly sexual activities perpetrated by ostensible pillars of society. The darkness behind the curtains of innocent-looking suburban homes is a theme famously explored by David Lynch.

Subsequent generations have shone a light into that once-secret darkness and showed us for who we really were, or at least presented a more truthful and rounded impression. Now the pendulum has swung and, if anything, and we tend to overestimate the darkness within us. It would seem a defensive response based on our innate negativity bias.

I think there is also a sense that we live in dark times, especially in the US after if went broke during GWB's second term, with its deep ideological rifts via reactionary anti-intellectual elements. In truth, we still live in excellent times - I'd rather be alive now than in the mid 20th century or earlier - even if living standards are going backwards, they're still better than at most times in history.

[Belinda]

Greta wrote:

In truth, we still live in excellent times - I'd rather be alive now than in the mid 20th century or earlier - even if living standards are going backwards, they're still better than at most times in history.

So would I. Better the devil I know. But this is the lull before the storm. Australia may dig for coal under an area as big as Britain: the ice shelf will disappear in a few years: the very poor of the Earth cannot wait to risk their lives to get out of poverty. Those misfortunes are linked in a big capitalist system of disrepute and remarkable tenacity.

[Sy Borg]

So would I. Better the devil I know. But this is the lull before the storm. Australia may dig for coal under an area as big as Britain: the ice shelf will disappear in a few years: the very poor of the Earth cannot wait to risk their lives to get out of poverty. Those misfortunes are linked in a big capitalist system of disrepute and remarkable tenacity.

It certainly appears as you say it, Belinda, which would seem to make mid 20th century-to-early 21st century living standards an even more rare jewel when compared with the times preceding and the likely times following.

Despite all of our advancements, life is still difficult, hazardous and painful for many people (not to mention the suffering of animals in the wild). Life remains both a blessing and a curse. As per my posts in other threads, aggregations of wealth and power seem to occur naturally; accumulations of wealth seem to develop their own "gravity".

So I suspect that our current situation was probably inevitable. If the current big players weren't controlling societies then others would be acting in their place.

[LovelyLau]

They both exist.
I cannot really stand dark pessimism but am not a complete optimist and have my doubts and dark moments.
I just think some things are so dark and some views are really dark and rigid.
But in terms of both things exist in life.
So I guess it is a preferable.
I prefer the Christopher reeves superman and I think superman is good and am not into modem marvel.
I think superman is supposed to be a good hero. Where be was a good egg and had a good and clean persona and was not too traumatised by his coming to earth and weakness kryptonite whereas I always think spiderman was darker and batman is a joke.
Spiderman was darker because he did not always handle the responsibility well and got tired and had moments of recklessness whereas superman had a straight rail in him and handled responsibility better maybe because he was not human
Whereas batman makes robin look good because his costume and persona is just ridiculous. Like nothing mysterious about him at all.

[Belinda]

They both exist.
I cannot really stand dark pessimism but am not a complete optimist and have my doubts and dark moments.
I just think some things are so dark and some views are really dark and rigid.
But in terms of both things exist in life.
So I guess it is a preferable.
I prefer the Christopher reeves superman and I think superman is good and am not into modem marvel.
I think superman is supposed to be a good hero. Where be was a good egg and had a good and clean persona and was not too traumatised by his coming to earth and weakness kryptonite whereas I always think spiderman was darker and batman is a joke.
Spiderman was darker because he did not always handle the responsibility well and got tired and had moments of recklessness whereas superman had a straight rail in him and handled responsibility better maybe because he was not human
Whereas batman makes robin look good because his costume and persona is just ridiculous. Like nothing mysterious about him at all.

But consider, it is human to have "moments of recklessness" , to get tired,and to not handle responsibility well. So although it's more fun if a hero is cleverer than most men, is it not better to like a hero because he is like what men are like?
Is it ever true to life if a hero has magical powers to help him to be heroic?

[LovelyLau]

They both exist.
I cannot really stand dark pessimism but am not a complete optimist and have my doubts and dark moments.
I just think some things are so dark and some views are really dark and rigid.
But in terms of both things exist in life.
So I guess it is a preferable.
I prefer the Christopher reeves superman and I think superman is good and am not into modem marvel.
I think superman is supposed to be a good hero. Where be was a good egg and had a good and clean persona and was not too traumatised by his coming to earth and weakness kryptonite whereas I always think spiderman was darker and batman is a joke.
Spiderman was darker because he did not always handle the responsibility well and got tired and had moments of recklessness whereas superman had a straight rail in him and handled responsibility better maybe because he was not human
Whereas batman makes robin look good because his costume and persona is just ridiculous. Like nothing mysterious about him at all.

But consider, it is human to have "moments of recklessness" , to get tired,and to not handle responsibility well. So although it's more fun if a hero is cleverer than most men, is it not better to like a hero because he is like what men are like?
Is it ever true to life if a hero has magical powers to help him to be heroic?

Yes heroes exist in real life and also in fantasy.
Where would we be without heroes who serve the greater good, no one to save lives or rescue people. They are needed in everyday life as well.
Both men and women.
I think in terms of real life everyone has moments of powerlessness and weakness, we are only human
But it does not necessarily mean we should think of ourselves as weak just human.
Thst humans even the hero types, sometimes the hero types most of all, break down and struggle.
Because to err is human.
And I think it is so arrogant to say you do not have times of crisis and struggle, no matter who you are.
And you do not have to fit anyone's box or prove anything to anyone.
Because people are who they are whether they are really giving and kind or really dark and mean.
If someone is dark and mean, it is up to them to work on their personality. People have different personalities but that person needs to open their eyes if they are not already open and make a change.

[Belinda]

They both exist.
I cannot really stand dark pessimism but am not a complete optimist and have my doubts and dark moments.
I just think some things are so dark and some views are really dark and rigid.
But in terms of both things exist in life.
So I guess it is a preferable.
I prefer the Christopher reeves superman and I think superman is good and am not into modem marvel.
I think superman is supposed to be a good hero. Where be was a good egg and had a good and clean persona and was not too traumatised by his coming to earth and weakness kryptonite whereas I always think spiderman was darker and batman is a joke.
Spiderman was darker because he did not always handle the responsibility well and got tired and had moments of recklessness whereas superman had a straight rail in him and handled responsibility better maybe because he was not human
Whereas batman makes robin look good because his costume and persona is just ridiculous. Like nothing mysterious about him at all.

But consider, it is human to have "moments of recklessness" , to get tired,and to not handle responsibility well. So although it's more fun if a hero is cleverer than most men, is it not better to like a hero because he is like what men are like?
Is it ever true to life if a hero has magical powers to help him to be heroic?

Yes heroes exist in real life and also in fantasy.
Where would we be without heroes who serve the greater good, no one to save lives or rescue people. They are needed in everyday life as well.
Both men and women.
I think in terms of real life everyone has moments of powerlessness and weakness, we are only human
But it does not necessarily mean we should think of ourselves as weak just human.
Thst humans even the hero types, sometimes the hero types most of all, break down and struggle.
Because to err is human.
And I think it is so arrogant to say you do not have times of crisis and struggle, no matter who you are.
And you do not have to fit anyone's box or prove anything to anyone.
Because people are who they are whether they are really giving and kind or really dark and mean.
If someone is dark and mean, it is up to them to work on their personality. People have different personalities but that person needs to open their eyes if they are not already open and make a change.

You have thought about all this, and I agree that a measure of optimism as hope, is necessary. Would you agree that it's safer for the child when she is taught there are bad people in the world and to be aware of this and to protect herself?

Can you suggest how people can be helped to "open their eyes" ?